142 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Santa - I am ready to defend your honour.

Unless Judo gets here first.

[Loomis]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

It really puzzles me why some anti-Craig Bond fans are unwilling to look past the hair colour issue. Craig's hair - in and of itself - really does seem to be a dealbreaker for some. We've had this discussion a zillion times, I know, but the fundamentalism of The Bond Must Have Dark Hair Brigade does baffle me, particularly as those same fans seem perfectly happy to overlook other films in which the lead actor doesn't exactly resemble Bond as Fleming described him (Moore in his 50s, anyone?).

Sadly, it appears that many would rather have James Bland - someone like, say, Julian McMahon, who may be vastly inferior as an actor but at least Looks Like Bond™ more than Craig does (allegedly, anyway).

Which really does beg the question: what does Bond Look Like™? If you asked an anti-Craiger "Who looks more like Bond should look like - Brosnan in DIE ANOTHER DAY, or Craig in CASINO ROYALE?", the unhesitating and vehement reply would be "Brosnan, of course". But why? Why doesn't he lose points for being 50+, with more than a few grey hairs? Is that what Fleming intended?

[Zorin Industries]

Script is the star as much as the actor. Had Brosnan been given a solid script, we'll have a Bond classic on our hands, too bad his era ended with Die Another Day, he was getting better while the producers were giving him less to do. The whole casting of Casino is about Barbs ego, Bond will sell no matter how much you mess it up, true for Die Another Day, true for Casino, easy to look better once you hire a oscar winning writer finally to polish the script, what was she waiting for? Just dicking about with the fanchise, when she should of been working on giving Pierce decent material, not oking invisable cars and getting Halle Berry spin offs or close to it, and adding characters DAD didn't need. It's very easy to look good after correcting your mistakes, but she must answer for her decisions sometime, lazy film making.

If she ended the Brosnan era with some class, she would of gotten alot more respect.

The script "is the star as much as the actor"? In a Bond film? Sorry. You couldn't be more wrong had you made some sort of claim that "the whole casting of Casino is about Babs' ego and that she is responsible for "lazy film making"....

Without opening this one up too much, I have had dealings with Eon and they are far from lazy when it comes to their organisation, their working ethos and their creative decisions.

This is one of the most mis-guided posts I have ever had to respond to on this site. It's such a demonstration of how so many pedantic fans haven't got a clue how a film is written, developed, shot and edited. It's not all about home-made SHAMELADY trailers and third-rate fan art.

[Johnboy007]

I don't like Babs's choices, so she didn't do her job properly. Should of chosen Jackman.

Going through this thread again, and I couldn't get past this. This is like the ultimate Craig-Not-Bond quote.

It's so unbelivable that it has to be true.

[Santa]

[quote name='Loomis' post='744212' date='4 June 2007 - 15:12'][quote name='santajosep' post='744200' date='4 June 2007 - 13:03'][quote name='Zorin Industries' post='744188' date='4 June 2007 - 12:18']A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?[/quote]
I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.
[/quote]

It really puzzles me why some anti-Craig Bond fans are unwilling to look past the hair colour issue. Craig's hair - in and of itself - really does seem to be a dealbreaker for some. We've had this discussion a zillion times, I know, but the fundamentalism of The Bond Must Have Dark Hair Brigade does baffle me, particularly as those same fans seem perfectly happy to overlook other films in which the lead actor doesn't exactly resemble Bond as Fleming described him (Moore in his 50s, anyone?).

Sadly, it appears that many would rather have James Bland - someone like, say, Julian McMahon, who may be vastly inferior as an actor but at least Looks Like Bond

[Loomis]

It just depresses me that many fans seems favour Tradition even at the price of a drop-off in quality or even outright blandness and mediocrity - the mentality that would prefer DIE ANOTHER DAY II with a McMahon type (and, obviously, Q and Moneypenny too). 'Cause then at least we'd have a traditionally good-looking James Bond, with dark hair, and all would be well in the world, never mind that Daniel Craig seems to be the most fantasised-about man on earth right now, or that you'd be hard pushed to make Brosnan (as he is today), Jackman or McMahon compute with Fleming's descriptions of 007.

I mean, CASINO ROYALE gets by far the best reviews of any film in the long history of the series, a Bafta Best Actor nod for its star, phenomenal box office, a real return to Fleming, and all kinds of wildest-dreams-of-Bond-fans stuff (frankly, I'm still pinching myself over CR), and yet for some fans it isn't enough?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And what's this great big huge stumbling block for the true keepers of the 007 flame? Oh, just hair colour, that's all, more or less.

[dodge]

Hugh Jackman's tapdancing killed him as Bond. Craig, of course, had played dark, troubled, even murderous, gays...which didn't trouble Eon. But Hugh? Oh, Hugh had to go and play a happy, witty, singing--and tapdancing--gay. Not just in the play itself but at the awards ceremony. Some things just can't be forgiven.

[Judo chop]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Santa - I am ready to defend your honour.

Unless Judo gets here first.

I

[Santa]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Santa - I am ready to defend your honour.

Unless Judo gets here first.

I'm sorry I couldn't have been there for you Santa, but I can think of no other I'd feel better about leaving your honor with than my friend plankattack. You are in good hands.

It was ages ago but it still hurts. So much....
Not really.
I think I can manage on my own but, er, thanks anyway.

[killkenny kid]

Hugh Jackman's tapdancing killed him as Bond. Craig, of course, had played dark, troubled, even murderous, gays...which didn't trouble Eon. But Hugh? Oh, Hugh had to go and play a happy, witty, singing--and tapdancing--gay. Not just in the play itself but at the awards ceremony. Some things just can't be forgiven.

I tapdance! what are we trying to say here?

[Safari Suit]

Now I don't wish to take sides or incite any unpleasantness here, but I have to say I find it interesting that when commenting on the flaws of the films people are often keen to place blame on the (nameless, faceless) "Producers". But when someone speaks ill of a specific producer, people seem not to like it. Nothing wrong with this of course, I just find it interesting.

[Judo chop]

I think I can manage on my own

There's not a doubt in my mind that you can.
And I love to be the sideline spectator when you do!

[killkenny kid]

I think I can manage on my own

There's not a doubt in my mind that you can.
And I love to be the sideline spectator when you do!

indeed..................gotta dance, gotta dance. Everybody dance.

[LadySylvia]

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public, if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005. Babs is ego, she wants control, hopefully Sony or public perceptions will change by 2012, alot can happen between now and then. I can dream.

Whether Babs can go to hell or not, she and Wilson are EON Productions. The only ones she and Wilson have to answer to in the choice of Bond is Sony Pictures. Look at Craig. Very few fans wanted him as Bond. The media made a point of making this known. Yet, Babs and Wilson stuck to their guns and kept Craig. As for the public, it is up to them whether they are willing to accept Babs and Wilson's choice as Bond.

But Hugh? Oh, Hugh had to go and play a happy, witty, singing--and tapdancing--gay. Not just in the play itself but at the awards ceremony. Some things just can't be forgiven.

But didn't Jackman played the violent and slightly murderous Wolverine for the third time and an vengeful and egotistical illusionist . . . after playing Peter Allen on Broadway?

Edited by LadySylvia, 04 June 2007 - 06:35 PM.

[dodge]

Hugh Jackman's tapdancing killed him as Bond. Craig, of course, had played dark, troubled, even murderous, gays...which didn't trouble Eon. But Hugh? Oh, Hugh had to go and play a happy, witty, singing--and tapdancing--gay. Not just in the play itself but at the awards ceremony. Some things just can't be forgiven.

I tapdance! what are we trying to say here?

It's okay to play a wretched gay but not a happy one? In any case, Jackman probably should have stayed firmly out of character at the awards ceremony. If he'd acted the king, and not the queen, Eon might not have regarded him as 'fey.'

[SeanValen00V]

Now I don't wish to take sides or incite any unpleasantness here, but I have to say I find it interesting that when commenting on the flaws of the films people are often keen to place blame on the (nameless, faceless) "Producers". But when someone speaks ill of a specific producer, people seem not to like it. Nothing wrong with this of course, I just find it interesting.

Well it seems people think Barbara Brocolli is perfect, I would seriously like to know how much influence she had in ending Brosnan's era, and the scripts he got. My biggest pain in the Bond film history, is the lawsuit that prevented Dalton from doing a 3rd film, and Brosnan's 5th film which I waited 3 years for, only for it not to happen, he wanted it, many fans wanted, (yes not all, no bond fans all think alike)) but many were disappointed. If the producers had any class, they would of learnt from Dalton's era, that once a Bond actor is gone, it's hard to repair damage, I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T WATCHED CASINO ROYALE BECAUSE THEY WERE SO SAD AND UPSET BROSNAN didn't do his 5th film.
He should of done one more, then passed the batton to Craig, but no, giving Pierce Brosnan a solid script would of meant the great Bond film of recent years to a successful established actor, Barbara likes to be in control and not admit her mistakes like Die Another Day.


I also reject Barbarba's dismisal of Jackman, she couldn't get him, because she didn't wanna pay up. How do we know what the truth is, I really dispise the secrecy, some Bond fans are very territorial in what they want from Bond, if you look at the posts in this thread, everyone is either ganging up againt one view, or the other, it is ok to criticise, if everyone agreed on this forum and danced happily into the sunset, how Craig is wonderful and Casino is great, then it's just a party forum celebrating one group of peoples joys over another group-minority here me-disatisfaction. It's like some of you are trying to brainwash me into accepting your views. But it's like Dalton said "Everyone on the streets, have some idea in what they want from Bond." And the Bond producers are not everyone, THEY WILL MAKE CHOICES that will upset passionate Bond fans like myself, I believe actors like Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale can play better Bonds then Daniel Craig, I also think Gerald Butler would as well.

Bond views can be so split, I write my rants because I have to wait alot of years before the possibility of getting my James Bond back, and yes, there are others out there, but perhaps not foruming here who also share my views, it's a large planet, and not every Bond fan is represented on one forum.


I know some people who like Casino because of the script, car and Bond girls, but didn't CARE MUCH FOR DANIEL CRAIG, the Bond forumula is as powerful as Bond himself at times, and yes this will upset any of you who like Craig, but that's life, people will watch Bond films for locations, music, girls, action scenes, villians, and they'll have to make do with Craig until their Bond returns one day.

I have nothing against Craig, but he shouldn't of been Bond when he was, I blame the producers. If they have Pierce Brosnan a solid script to end his era, the next Bond film after would of been a challenge with a new actor, as Brosnan would of gone out on a creative as well as successful high with a dark and gritty script, he showed more range in films like Tailor of Panama then what the producers gave him as Bond, he was not used to his potential, and I stand by that, by giving him a lazy script in Die Another Day, it made Casino Royale instantly inviting scriptwise no matter who the actor was, kinda like the story of OH HER MAJESTYS SECRET SERVICE, SOLID SCRIPT, but not everyone's favorite actor-George and yes he still had fans, and yes Connery was the man still, and so some, even me, we felt robbed of Brosnan's 5th film that will never be.

Hugh Jackman resembles a bit of Connery, Dalton and Brosnan, combine his Wolverine character with any other normal guy he's played, and he's got range, some will disagree, but I thought he was great in the The Prestige as was Christian Bale who would make a great Bond also, infact Bale's Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, was with girls, fast cars and gagets, and he enjoyed it, he was Bond in that in a way.

[Santa]

Now I don't wish to take sides or incite any unpleasantness here, but I have to say I find it interesting that when commenting on the flaws of the films people are often keen to place blame on the (nameless, faceless) "Producers". But when someone speaks ill of a specific producer, people seem not to like it. Nothing wrong with this of course, I just find it interesting.

I think the problem here is that, not for the first time with this particular poster, he's making a personal attack on Babs, and I can't think why. Is she his ex-girlfriend? Did she sell him a dodgy motor? When nameless, faceless producers, plural, need to be criticised then obviously she can take her fair share of the blame, but that's not what's happening here. Important as Babs is when it comes to making Bond decisions, I don't believe it's a one-Babs show. Why is Michael being so neatly emasculated out of the picture?

I think I can manage on my own

There's not a doubt in my mind that you can.
And I love to be the sideline spectator when you do!

Oh but you make me sound like such a cantankerous old bag when I'm not, I'm a happy little soul! Except when weirdos mistake me for someone called Pete.

[Johnboy007]

[SilencedPPK]

I like Daniel Craig as Bond... and I just got done worrying about who would be the next Bond. I don't want to worry about it until 2012.

[Santa]

I like Daniel Craig as Bond... and I just got done worrying about who would be the next Bond. I don't want to worry about it until 2012.

Same here. It's waaaaaayy too early to be thinking about the next Bond. I'm sure there will be plenty of unpleasantness to keep us entertained when the time comes.

[Bond Bombshell]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Whoops, I think you mean me! This was ages ago, but I remember it well. There was a thread about the suitability of a certain actor to play Bond in which you accused me (and others) of just picking out a male model type with dark hair. In fact, I was familiar with this chap's work and had researched him thoroughly, whereas you clearly had no idea who he was. So no, you didn't get a bollocking for suggesting that Bond needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties, because I would agree with that. (Although this is completely subjective). You got a response from me for suggesting I hadn't put any effort into the nomination when actually I had done, while ironically your dismissal of the candidate was based on little more than a couple of pictures.

I've noticed that when a candidate is not to their liking, there is a tendency for some members to throw out the accusation that the name has only been put forward because of height, hair colour, etc. I would guess that most CBn members have more depth than this, and I certainly have. Disagree with my choices by all means, but please don't accuse me of shallowness.

[Germanlady]

I have seen Hugh Jackman in The Pretige and from what he looked like in most of that movie, he will look waaayy too old to play Bond in 6 years. Unlike Craig, he doesn`t have a craggy face, but fine features, who will not age gracefully.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public, if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005. Babs is ego, she wants control, hopefully Sony or public perceptions will change by 2012, alot can happen between now and then. I can dream.

hahaaha, I really don't think so about Hugh Jackman as Bond myself BUT...I don't really care for Babs either and I don't think her choices concerning were all that good, but I won't go so far as saying she can go to hell.

[Santa]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Whoops, I think you mean me! This was ages ago, but I remember it well. There was a thread about the suitability of a certain actor to play Bond in which you accused me (and others) of just picking out a male model type with dark hair. In fact, I was familiar with this chap's work and had researched him thoroughly, whereas you clearly had no idea who he was. So no, you didn't get a bollocking for suggesting that Bond needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties, because I would agree with that. (Although this is completely subjective). You got a response from me for suggesting I hadn't put any effort into the nomination when actually I had done, while ironically your dismissal of the candidate was based on little more than a couple of pictures.

Just looked back and you're right, it was you but that wasn't what happened. I am familiar with his work (he's been all over British TV for God's sake) which was why I found him as Bond such a wet fish idea. Look at that thread though and others on this subject - for example, Andrew Lancel from The Bill??!! It's full of those kind of suggestions. Mind you, you were keen on Max Beesley ( ) too so I think we are forever fated to disagree on this one

[stamper]

no one on earth would have watched it on release and thought: that Daniel Craig, what a perfect choice to replace Brosnan as Bond. Most people would have thought: this shambling Sid James lookalike - no wonder the British film industry can't seem to produce A-list superstars like Brangelina. And the Bond fans among them would have continued to wonder who'd make the best "new Brosnan" - Hugh Jackman? Clive Owen? Julian McMahon?

Great Post Loomis ! The last list of three is laughable. Fanboys wetdreams who cannot imagine anyone not looking like a model handling the role.

I also agree that the British film industry is not capable of creating A list stars anymore. Because the more anyone says it's not a good idea, the more it's a good one, especially coming from a woman like Barbara.

If the majority of CR haters had their ways back in 1962, Connery would have NEVER ever been cast in Dr No, and we would have no James Bond series today.

Hugh Jackman? Clive Owen? Julian McMahon? are just stiffs, forgetable "stars" who will be forgotten in 30 years, while Craig will be old and bald, but still respected like Connery is.


PS as for the guy who hopes Babs will be vetoed soon, that will spell the end of the series after just one flop, because no one else than EON knows how to make these. Just because you hate the woman doesn't mean that your narrow view of the franchise should be gospel. And remember you post behind a computer screen. She is out there in real life, actually DOING THINGS and LIVING THEM.

[Zorin Industries]

Now I don't wish to take sides or incite any unpleasantness here, but I have to say I find it interesting that when commenting on the flaws of the films people are often keen to place blame on the (nameless, faceless) "Producers". But when someone speaks ill of a specific producer, people seem not to like it. Nothing wrong with this of course, I just find it interesting.

Well it seems people think Barbara Brocolli is perfect, I would seriously like to know how much influence she had in ending Brosnan's era, and the scripts he got. My biggest pain in the Bond film history, is the lawsuit that prevented Dalton from doing a 3rd film, and Brosnan's 5th film which I waited 3 years for, only for it not to happen, he wanted it, many fans wanted, (yes not all, no bond fans all think alike)) but many were disappointed. If the producers had any class, they would of learnt from Dalton's era, that once a Bond actor is gone, it's hard to repair damage, I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T WATCHED CASINO ROYALE BECAUSE THEY WERE SO SAD AND UPSET BROSNAN didn't do his 5th film.
He should of done one more, then passed the batton to Craig, but no, giving Pierce Brosnan a solid script would of meant the great Bond film of recent years to a successful established actor, Barbara likes to be in control and not admit her mistakes like Die Another Day.


I also reject Barbarba's dismisal of Jackman, she couldn't get him, because she didn't wanna pay up. How do we know what the truth is, I really dispise the secrecy, some Bond fans are very territorial in what they want from Bond, if you look at the posts in this thread, everyone is either ganging up againt one view, or the other, it is ok to criticise, if everyone agreed on this forum and danced happily into the sunset, how Craig is wonderful and Casino is great, then it's just a party forum celebrating one group of peoples joys over another group-minority here me-disatisfaction. It's like some of you are trying to brainwash me into accepting your views. But it's like Dalton said "Everyone on the streets, have some idea in what they want from Bond." And the Bond producers are not everyone, THEY WILL MAKE CHOICES that will upset passionate Bond fans like myself, I believe actors like Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale can play better Bonds then Daniel Craig, I also think Gerald Butler would as well.

Bond views can be so split, I write my rants because I have to wait alot of years before the possibility of getting my James Bond back, and yes, there are others out there, but perhaps not foruming here who also share my views, it's a large planet, and not every Bond fan is represented on one forum.


I know some people who like Casino because of the script, car and Bond girls, but didn't CARE MUCH FOR DANIEL CRAIG, the Bond forumula is as powerful as Bond himself at times, and yes this will upset any of you who like Craig, but that's life, people will watch Bond films for locations, music, girls, action scenes, villians, and they'll have to make do with Craig until their Bond returns one day.

I have nothing against Craig, but he shouldn't of been Bond when he was, I blame the producers. If they have Pierce Brosnan a solid script to end his era, the next Bond film after would of been a challenge with a new actor, as Brosnan would of gone out on a creative as well as successful high with a dark and gritty script, he showed more range in films like Tailor of Panama then what the producers gave him as Bond, he was not used to his potential, and I stand by that, by giving him a lazy script in Die Another Day, it made Casino Royale instantly inviting scriptwise no matter who the actor was, kinda like the story of OH HER MAJESTYS SECRET SERVICE, SOLID SCRIPT, but not everyone's favorite actor-George and yes he still had fans, and yes Connery was the man still, and so some, even me, we felt robbed of Brosnan's 5th film that will never be.

Hugh Jackman resembles a bit of Connery, Dalton and Brosnan, combine his Wolverine character with any other normal guy he's played, and he's got range, some will disagree, but I thought he was great in the The Prestige as was Christian Bale who would make a great Bond also, infact Bale's Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, was with girls, fast cars and gagets, and he enjoyed it, he was Bond in that in a way.

Are you actually a Bond fan? Should you be on this site? (!). You convey a complete lack of understanding about the production history and ethic of Eon's fifty year canon of work.

Hugh Jackman would have made a terrible Bond. He has been associated with another franchise. Eon are rightly scrupulous when it comes to that. I have spoken in person to the 'management' at Eon and suggested an actor once. I was told exactly why that would be a wrong choice and the explanation was right.

"I blame the producers. If they have Pierce Brosnan a solid script to end his era, the next Bond film after would of been a challenge with a new actor, as Brosnan would of gone out on a creative as well as successful high with a dark and gritty script"

The next Bond film after DIE ANOTHER DAY was a challenge - and one Eon surpassed themselves with.

"I also reject Barbarba's dismisal of Jackman, she couldn't get him, because she didn't wanna pay up. How do we know what the truth is, I really dispise the secrecy"

Why do you "despise the secrecy"...?!! Because Eon don't consult you over whether they should suggest Brosnan moves on?! It's none of your business. It's none of OUR business. As for Eon not getting Jackman because they "wouldn't pay up" - you have the most misguided, fan-obsessed view of many a poster on this site. I have had dealings with Eon and they are the most loyal, respectful and determined of production companies. They refuse to meet extortionate financial demands not because they are tight, but because they know how much something is genuinely worth (and that includes actors such as Connery and Brosnan who started throwing their financial toys out of the pram). Eon Productions does not sit in its tower counting its money. If anything it re-distributes its wealth in hundreds of benevolent and private ways - honouring the work and loyalty of its crew, staff and cast. And my opinion here comes from personal experience of a very well run cornershop forever in the shadow of Hollywood's shopping malls. Where does your opinion come from - a 1987 copy of FILM REVIEW?!

[Zorin Industries]

It won't happen. To most people (including myself), he's Wolverine, and always will be.

Cubby Brocolli almost signed Adam West-tv's Batman as Bond, but Adam turned it down.


I don't think Jackman is typecast as Wolverine, Stallone has Rocky and Rambo, it's possible to at least play 2 characters your known for. There's no rule out there to say otherwise.

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public, if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005. Babs is ego, she wants control, hopefully Sony or public perceptions will change by 2012, alot can happen between now and then. I can dream.

"Babs can go to hell"...? Do you feel better now? And it's Barbara to you, not "Babs". And why would she need to go to hell? So she can read your turgid, ill-read views on Bond that have no doubt been smeared in your own dirt on some cave wall?

And why the hell does anyone out there feel the Bond franchise is theirs ?! It belongs to Eon and Danjaq. They can do exactly what they want. It's their business, it's their financial future and it's their legacy. I'm sorry, but some idiot watching home-made SHAMELADY trailers doesn't count.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 05 June 2007 - 12:52 PM.

[00Twelve]

It won't happen. To most people (including myself), he's Wolverine, and always will be.

Cubby Brocolli almost signed Adam West-tv's Batman as Bond, but Adam turned it down.


I don't think Jackman is typecast as Wolverine, Stallone has Rocky and Rambo, it's possible to at least play 2 characters your known for. There's no rule out there to say otherwise.

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public, if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005. Babs is ego, she wants control, hopefully Sony or public perceptions will change by 2012, alot can happen between now and then. I can dream.

"Babs can go to hell"...? Do you feel better now? And it's Barbara to you, not "Babs". And why would she need to go to hell? So she can read your turgid, ill-read views on Bond that have no doubt been smeared in your own dirt on some cave wall?

And why the hell does anyone out there feel the Bond franchise is theirs ?! It belongs to Eon and Danjaq. They can do exactly what they want. It's their business, it's their financial future and it's their legacy. I'm sorry, but some idiot watching home-made SHAMELADY trailers doesn't count.

Right on, Zorin. And I hate to pee on anyone's cheerios, but Star Wars is the same way.

As for Hugh Jackman, I admit, he was my choice for Bond #6. If he can pull it off, and if they refrain from going back to the tie-adjusting, laser watch wearing superagent, I'd be all about it.

Probably won't happen, though.

[dodge]

The math alone, at this point, should rule Jackman out. No ageism at play here, just a simple fact: if he's 44 when starting out, he'd be close to fifty by his third film. And we've already been there a few woeful times. Three films may seem an ideal number for Bond actors now. But do we want to rule out the possibility of an extended tenure? If Jackman did five films, he'd be in his middle fifties. No, thanks. I even loved Hugh's tapdancing but really have to pass.

[Bond Bombshell]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.

Whoops, I think you mean me! This was ages ago, but I remember it well. There was a thread about the suitability of a certain actor to play Bond in which you accused me (and others) of just picking out a male model type with dark hair. In fact, I was familiar with this chap's work and had researched him thoroughly, whereas you clearly had no idea who he was. So no, you didn't get a bollocking for suggesting that Bond needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties, because I would agree with that. (Although this is completely subjective). You got a response from me for suggesting I hadn't put any effort into the nomination when actually I had done, while ironically your dismissal of the candidate was based on little more than a couple of pictures.

Just looked back and you're right, it was you but that wasn't what happened. I am familiar with his work (he's been all over British TV for God's sake) which was why I found him as Bond such a wet fish idea. Look at that thread though and others on this subject - for example, Andrew Lancel from The Bill??!! It's full of those kind of suggestions. Mind you, you were keen on Max Beesley ( ) too so I think we are forever fated to disagree on this one

Sorry Santa, it was obvious that you had little idea who Richard Armitage was for reasons I stated at the time and don't really want to go over again, and he may be all over British TV at the moment, but he was less prolific a year ago. Yes, there were other actors mentioned in the thread, but the thread was started about him and was mainly about him, and you had specifically scathing things to say about him. That's fair enough, you're not obliged to like the idea of him as Bond, but when the accusation was made that no thought had been put into candidates, and that posters were just suggesting any old British actor with dark hair, I was always going to respond to that. Firstly, because I have a lot more depth than this. Secondly, because whether Armitage or anybody else has no more to them than looks is purely subjective. Thirdly, because it was very easy for me to take your accusations of shallowness and redirect them at yourself when your judgements were clearly made on so very little knowledge of the man. That's not a bollocking, that's an argument I made based on your own methods.

It's clear that you are still sore about the argument, because you keep bringing it up a year after the event. (This is not the only thread in which you've done so). If you feel hurt then I'm sorry, because that was not the intention. All I was doing was defending my corner after accusations of lack of imagination, but I'm sure that was not intended to hurt either. As for Beesley, I did say he might make a fun Bond in the Roger Moore tradition, but I didn't say I was keen for this to happen. Beesley would be a long way down my wish list. I don't expect us to agree about Bond candidates, but it is how we disagree that matters.